Though I can understand what you feel after seeing too many "ATM is the
technology for tomorrow" kind of adverts and seeing relatively small
deployment of ATM to desktop, I need to make my point clear.
Also, I don't want to start a holy war here.
>I'd say its just plain wrong. Even Steve Deering has always said
>that IPv6 may never be deployed. As more and more people are
>acutally seeing IPv6, more and more of them are saying it is unlikely
>to ever be widely deployed.
Can you give me the pointer to the source of your quote?
I think he meant that, even when IPv6 is get deployed, IPv4 will stay
there for very long time - IPv4 is already too well deployed and
we can't completely remove IPv4 boxes from the world.
We (I mean KAME guys and other people) are REAL serious about getting
IPv6 deployed. We are not just doing research/experiment, we really
are trying to get IPv6 deployed.
IPv6 is real serious topic, especially for asian region IMHO, since we
will see more aggressive internet deployment in highly populated
countries (china and india). How can you serve 2 billion more people
with IPv4? What happens if every elementary school in China gets
connected to the Internet? Putting them behind NAT box is insane.
Somehow I find some people in US look much more optimistic about this,
I donno why.
>Indeed, people more clueful than Frank or I are even as far as to say
>that IPv6 is _undeployable_. NetBSD may disagree with that position,
>but it's certainly not an untenable or obviously-wrong position.
come visit Japan, I'll show you the IPv6 deployment around here.
itojun@yes, I'm logging into my mail server over IPv6 leased line.